FGM Sergeant

Firepower for me is the most important. The british concept of heavy Churchills doesn't appeal to me, you'll get killed eventually, the french way is too light, even in cannons. If you put a tank with a great cannon in a good position and you move it, you're movement is protection.

FGM SITE OVERSEER

Hindsight is always 20/20! The answer for that time lies in developing tanks that align with sound doctrine. The Germans excelled at that. US doctrine emphasizes Mobility, Firepower, and Shock; move / shoot / communicate.

Back then I suppose I would focus on mobility & reliability then adapt from there. To contradict @Markojager, the German Elefant is a telling example of a great cannon on a useless chassis.

FGM Major

Agree with @Vartuoosi . Mass production, field maintenance/reliability, and crew survivability take top honors (i.e. the good old Sherman). This is from a national perspective looking at winning the entire war. When it comes to Combat Mission's "win this one battle" perspective, I love mah Panthers.

Assumming we can't go with value, build speed, crew survivability, ease of use, reliability, weight, doctrine, complexity, upgradability, access to specialist machinery and/or resources or any of so many more seriously important things that would be the real determinant. (yes he is REALLY, REALLY annoying when he gets like this, I know).

I'd have to say........... depends!!

Russians - Mobility, then Firepower then Armour - Need to redeploy quickly over large distances and use mass to overwhelme defences when on attack - doctrine and use is based on quantity overcoming quality. Own casualties are least important factor as you will win numbers game.

Western Allies - Firepower, then Armour then Mobility - Shorter operational distances and more crowded terrain mean speed of maneuver is less important, as neither manpower or manufacturing capacity are not a "major" issue longterm priority should be given to knocking enemy vehicles out rather than survivability of chassis/crew.

Germans - Armour, then Firepower then Mobility - Will always be outnumbered in manpower and manufacturing over the long term, need to ensure you get best value out of crews AND vehicles, therefore emphasise survivability then killing power.

FGM Major

In every case mobility. An armour what can´t move can´t get into the right firing position. Further it can get outmaneuvered so its armour is useless as well then. That to answer the question in extreme!

I have to disagree with the Elephant/Ferdinand was useless! 320 kills to only 13 own losses (sPzJAbt. 653 in 1943) isn´t useless in my eyes. And that in spite of all the technical breakdowns. Both sPzJAbt. 653 and 654 destroyed 500 enemy tanks, 100 guns and 20 ATGs. Further was this tank hunter the first Porsche hybrid engine. But it/he had to suffer as the most "advanced" german tanks - no or not enough testing before its engagement.

FGM 2nd Lieutenant

Simply put I would go with firepower.
I would think that besides a powerful gun, putting it on a reliable chassis, with a fast turret and state of the art optics would also fall under the category Firepower.
There's something to be said for having a gun that can kill in one shot.

FGM New Member

The Abrams seems to be a good compromise between all three. But it's interesting how overall strategic goals help define any or all of those criteria (mobility, firepower, and protection). For example, Germany's tanks during the blitz were light and fast but as the country shifted from the offense to the defense they produced heavier tanks like the Tiger I and Tiger II which had better firepower and protection but were severely lacking in mobility. And that worked because the Germans knew trhe tanks would end up being emplaced fighting defensively.
Modern western tanks followed a similar philosophy in the 80s. With a focus on firepower and protection, the idea was that NATO would face down the Russian armored hordes from emplaced defenses, scoring hits before the Russians came were close enough to effectively use their own weapons. Thus, we see the Chally, Leopard, and Abrams with advanced targeting systems that can score a first-hit-kill against most adversaries. By the way, have oyu guys seen footage from the latest Eurostatory NATO Arms expo last month?! A new generation of NATO MBT's is being tested to replace the Leo and Leclerc. Simply put, they took a Leclerc turret/autoloader and put it on a Leo 2 chassis. Pretty cool concept!
I'm waiting for the next breakthrough in lightweight materials. Remember how Chobham/Composite armor revolutionized tanks? Imagine a new type of armor, stronger and lighter than DU!

FGM SITE OVERSEER

<snipped>
By the way, have you guys seen footage from the latest Eurostatory NATO Arms expo last month?! A new generation of NATO MBT's is being tested to replace the Leo and Leclerc. Simply put, they took a Leclerc turret/autoloader and put it on a Leo 2 chassis. Pretty cool concept!
I'm waiting for the next breakthrough in lightweight materials. Remember how Chobham/Composite armor revolutionized tanks? Imagine a new type of armor, stronger and lighter than DU!

Yep - that's the one. And yes, it is a concept design and won't enter production in its current state. But France/Germany are joining forces to create the next generation EU MBT - and this is pretty telling because it shows a focus on heavier armor (the Leo 2 chassis) with a smaller profile, more automation (Leclerc turret/autoloader). I'd say the present-day Leclerc is an example of a western MBT created from the lightest parts. It is considerably lighter than the other NATO tanks (at 54 tons vs ~65-70 for the Challenger 2, Leo 2, and Abrams) but also faster. And then Russian and Chinese MBTs are about 45 tons but rely heavily on ERA bricks.
Also, now that Active Protection Systems are really being taken seriously, it will be interesting to see if tanks can go with lighter armor due to the ability to incercept projectiles before they hit the tank.

OBVIOUSLY!
Unless it came from Germany - in which case it should have had some sort of toaster for strudel.
Hmmm... I propse a new thread: "What luxury item(s) do you think should come standard on armored vehicles?"